Thanks Jack: I've noted the IPR issue if that image gets used again. Sorry we
didn't get to meet up this time in the US. Next time hopefully! (01)
All the best, (02)
Peter (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Park
Sent: 25 April 2007 14:29
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit follow up - "Folksology"? (04)
Thanks, Peter, for this message and the link that presents the Celtic
Tree. It's a great metaphor, and also a great image. That particular
image should be credited (it appears) to Jen Delyth
http://www.kelticdesigns.com/
who appears happy to allow it to be expressed in non-commercial ways,
but with appropriate credit. Inverting the image appears to have removed
the artist's signature. (05)
Your analysis of that as a metaphor, I think, is spot on. (06)
Cheers
Jack (07)
Peter F Brown wrote:
> Debbie:
>
> Absolutely agree with you: I’m not trying to invent anything new (at
> least, I don’t think so, if this week’s discussions are anything to go
> by) but just give a neologism to something we seem to be struggling
> with: as for example, with the step already taken yesterday in
> recognising the dimensions of ontologies and seeing the need to identify
> ways to collaborate – that’s what I’d call Folksology – both the
> inclusion of folksonomies in the broad family of ontologies, and the
> approach that folksonomies take in enabling collaboration and
> interoperability in a relatively unstructured manner with an easily
> accessible on-ramp.
>
>
>
> To switch metaphor, the Celtic Tree is interesting because what one
> person might think of as a branch out from their work, another may
> consider as a root for their own work… such as we saw yesterday around
> the point on “ontology as a designed artefact”: is it an output or in
> input? It’s both. if we tried to visualise it, I guess it’d look more
> like something from MC Escher ;-)
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Deborah
> MacPherson
> *Sent:* 25 April 2007 13:52
> *To:* Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit follow up - "Folksology"?
>
>
>
> Thanks for sending this Peter. Really interesting image selections and
> objectives in the slides [3]
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt
>
> If the disciplines working on defining and trying to solve this problem
> are as intertwined as the tree and root metaphor - why force
> distinctions between them? Rather, what purpose does it serve in the end
> to separate different (sorry to use this term...) approaches?
>
> If the purpose of identifying a new discipline is to be able to measure
> or otherwise indicate the levels of translation or formalization needed
> to evaluate, import/export, and integrate ontologies to accomplish what
> the authors Lynch and Ardito describe as "Stalking the Semantic Sweet
> Spot" - is the issue that a hybrid discipline needs its own name within
> the tangled knot?
>
> I think we will be forever merging and dividing the fields that tackle
> this problem over the next hundreds of years. Would it be simpler in the
> long run to cordon off and somehow signify basic levels of translation
> or formalization that need to consistently recognized up and down the
> spectrum regardless of user's special knowledge? Of course each area
> will eventually need a name but it seems like the bigger picture still
> needs to be clearer first.
>
> Debbie
>
> *************************************************
> Deborah L. MacPherson
> Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>
> **************************************************
>
> On 4/25/07, *Peter F Brown* <peter@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>
> Firstly, many thanks also to Peter Yim, our NIST hosts and everyone on
> the organising committee for a very successful meeting.
>
> My immediate "takeaway" was that we seem to have made a significant
> breakthrough in finding a means of discourse between some very diverse
> disciplines and broadened all of our appreciations of the range and
> depth of work on ontologies.
>
> Further, we need a different mindset to address the problem of capturing
> and encapsulating so-called "tacit knowledge" that goes beyond the
> limitations of the largely "transactional", process-driven approaches
> that are used today [1], even in many so-called "Web 2.0" applications.
>
> For me, one of the most powerful ideas that came out was the need to
> have ontology definition as a permanently evolving and refining process
> rather than a single, static, designed artefact.
>
> Switching domains this morning, to the Semantic Interoperability
> Community of Practice meeting [2] I have been already struck by the
> similarity of the discourse and the problems identified. One
> presentation already this morning [3] has used an image of the "Celtic
> Tree of Life" - with the roots nourishing the branches and vice-versa -
> to depict a major information architecture problem and this image seems
> to be a powerful metaphor of the need to work across all parts of the
> "spectrum" of ontologies from folkonomies up to highly formal ontologies.
>
> Put the two together and maybe you get: Folksology. Could this be the
> new "discipline" that we all ought to master?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> [1] see, for example, "Interactive SOA - Towards content-centric
> services",
> http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2007/slides/Andrew-Townley.odp
> that I referred to at the Summit
> [2] http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoPSpecialConference2_2007_04_25
> [3]
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt
> <http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (09)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 (010)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (012)
|